Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-02-24
THE OLD FEnRY MINI CASE.
CONTINUED trOnl ara raa,.,

~
building falls, 1t is from negligent or in
sufhcient construction; II lies iipon n ia.
fendant, who 10 such on that account. 10
prove that causes over which he had no
control, and for which he Is not responsible.
brought about the result, II Ia most nm
usual thing for house to fall to The ground.
and he who by no fault of his suffers iniurv
ny 1t has the right to call upon the owner
Tor compensation for such injury. II he
EeslsI sne action ne must show that he was
think the charge we have delivered TO
the jury Will cover all that has been said on
the other side In their Instructions: II NOT
" the counsel will tell me any points that
nave mot been considered, will take up
their instructions one by one.
Mr.. Bradford-As understand the matter
all OF the instructions have not been
TO you.
Chief Justice Then viii take the matter
up. When the charge covers instructions, the
court are not bound to review the points
which the charge covers.
The chief Justice then read separately the
instructions presented by the defendants
counsel and said: 1--WE decline 10 give In
structions on the point covered by the
nrst, as We have already instructed you on
thnt point when we said that man ought
10 exercise due care IN case OF that kind
and must take something beyond the ordi.
nary care In putting up building OF that
Kind. We also decline to give instructions
IN the second, as We have likewise con-
On the third we gave you the instance of
an engineer that he 10 not bound to 20
along the road and inspect It before rum
ming his engine upon 1t. The law holds no
man responsible for not taking cosnizance
Of such things in an employment and duty
The fourth we decline to take cognizance
OF the hrst part for the reason that have
Just given. And the next, because Il Ire
supposes that the defendant Is excused
from the duty of noticing what the building
should e,whereas his duty required him TO
know whether 1t would be safe for those
working on 1t.
The fifth instruction we decline to give
because the president OF the defendant, Mr..
Mendinhall was talked with and consulted
about the plans and the plaintiff could not
have had equal knowledge of the defects In
the wall, and 1t is improper for us give you
instructions OF that kind on any assump.
ton that he had.
As to the sixth, there Is no objection to
the part that defendant had tight to rely
upon the plaintiffs competency In bis en-
ployment; but he had no right to be appre-
hensive and avoid the danger that he might
have observed by the exercise OF ordinary
struction.
These are very carefully drawn instruc-
ehoio hiih poiAcWuut W hubWbT.
On the seventh point have already ad-
dressed you and told you that unless the
storm was a phenomenal one such as
builders do not provide against and do not
contemplate, that one Is liable II the build
ing fall by reason OF that storm.
The eighth is refused because 1t is as
sumed that Is inches would be thick
enough, whereas 1t is not proved. II Is
proved that the wall ought to be II Inches
thick.
The ninth is refused as allowing the Jury
TO speculate concerning an uncertain fact,
there being no proof of the fact.
Primarily the tenth instruction is all
right, but having proved negligence the de-
fendant was bound to due diligence.
As to the eleventh, In the prosecution Of
case OF this kind, IL 1t was not plaintiffs
negligence he is bound to show 1t. His
whole case was tried upon that theory.
Into the question Of damages, IL the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff the chief
justice charge the following considerations
should be brought: Expenses incurred In
being treated and attended In endeavoring
TO be cured the bodily pain and sufferings
Of the plaintiff; hindrance from pursuing
his employment as carpenter and transact
Ing his other business; loss Of wages from
his disability and by reason OF Its perma.
neney II so It be.
DELAY IN REACHING A VERDICT.
The court awaited the jury's return until
1 o'clock, at which hour the judges retired
for dinner leaving the court open. Juror
about noon communicated with the chief
Justice through brief note, the contents OF
which was not ascertained, but from an ex-
preston dropped by his honor after read
ing the epistle would indicate that 1t will
be some time before a verdict is reached.
This presumption was still further strength
ened by the jury making request for din
ner.
VERDICT FOR GILES.
The Jury came In few minutes after
court met In the afternoon, at 2 O'Clock, and
rendered verdict for $5, 900 In favor of the
plaintiff. There were very few spectators
In court at the time, and there was no
excitement. Court Immediately afterward
adjourned until Wednesday morning.
HOW THE VERDICT WAS REACHED.
After leaving the courtroom 1t was
ascerained upon general expression
Of opinion that the jury was unani-
nous upon the point Of awarding a YER
diet for the plaintiff. The question of dam
ages then came up and there was great d.
verslty OF opinion as TO the amount.
The lowest figure named was $4,000, while
four or five Of the panel were In favor OF
giving verdict for Sl00O0 the highest
sum named. After much discussion and
seven or eight ballots $4,000 was the sum of
damages agreed upon.
Thesuperior court was opened yesterday
morning at IL Is O'Clock, Chief Justice
Comegya and Judge Houston on the
bench. The roll Of the special jurors in
the case of Goasam vs. the Diamond State
Iron Company was called and they were
discharged from any further attendance.
The witnesses in the case were called for
ward, proved their attendance and were
dismissed.
The counsel in this case had been
- a. L.. kn.,W nd IN
whispered about the court room that a
compromise was under consideration.
The discharge of the Jury was the first
indication that an understanding had
been arrived at. There was much specu-
lation as TO the basis of the settlement
and a variety of figures were named, but
as the agreement was made entirely out
side of court there was no announcement
made. The first reports wero that
compromise had been effected
that finally settled the Gossam case,
and the amount that he was to
get was put at different sums, from ~ 900
to $i2, COO. The belief among those who
are nearest 20 the facts was that the sum
Is greater than the jury-verdict in the
Giles case, because Gossam seems to be
more severely injured than Giles. But it
soon developed that no final settlement
had been made and that the ultimate dis
position Of the case depends upon the
action of the court of errors and appeals
in the case of Ferris Giles, which has
been taken up by the defendant.
One of the counsel for the Diamond
State Iron Company, in answer to an in
quiry by an EVERY EVENING representa-
tive, stated that an understanding had
been arrived at by which all the cases
against the company would be held over
pending the action of the court, of appeals
in Giles case. This is all that was said by
any of the attorneys about the agreement.
Outside it was stated that in Gossam's
case it was agreed that if the court of ap-
peals hold with the plaintiff in the Giles
case and affirm the proceedings of the
superior court then he (Gossam) was to
get $4,000. This is speculation based
on pretty good authority.
There II no doubt entertained that
whatever figure was set by the counsel
and the parties in interest was greater
than the Giles verdict, because the plain
tiff Gossam's injuries are evidently more
damaging than those of Giles. He carries
his arm in splints still, and it seems
to be completely withered. The doctors
are reported as declaring that the
arm will yet have to be ampu-
tated, and that il would have been
better for the patient had amputation
taken place long ago. II 1t is taken on